Another Proof of Evolution and Problem for Creationism: Ring Species

reply to post by randyvs


Why waste time trying to "disprove" creationism, when its own believers can't prove it?

We just stick around to correct all your poor understandings of how biology works

reply to post by TheWalkingFox


Come on have you ever seen me trying to prove God exists ? It's so obvious he certainly dosn't need or want me to do so. I simply point out how far people like you and Madness, (who don't even make up the better part of science) are away from proving he dosn't exist. In this case 92% of America still believe. Guess he's content
with bouncing off walls.

reply to post by madnessinmysoul


So why is it that the birds don't just evolve into a species that doesn't have to migrate?

Same for other animals as well...

Also why have we not had a mass evolution since, well...us?

Why is evolution still a theory and hasn't been proven correct?

reply to post by johngrissom


Please go back and read the thread. There is a answer for every question you have posted.

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
reply to post by dusty1

 

They didn't re-create anything, you're quote mining in a very deceptive manner. What they did was re-create the conditions that evidence shows were present on the Earth in its early days, around 4 billion years ago, and RNA arose.

Basically they created a simulation of natural conditions. This doesn't mean they actively created something, they demonstrated that it could happen naturally. Just like tossing a groundhog into a room that has a dirt floor and observing it attempting to dig a burrow doesn't make the claim that the scientists taught the groundhog to burrow.

Please re-read the article you cited as proof. Life's First Spark Re-Created in the Laboratory

“By changing the way we mix the ingredients together, we managed to make ribonucleotides,” said Sutherland. “The chemistry works very effectively from simple precursors, and the conditions required are not distinct from what one might imagine took place on the early Earth.” Like other would-be nucleotide synthesizers, Sutherland’s team included phosphate in their mix, but rather than adding it to sugars and nucleobases, they started with an array of even simpler molecules that were probably also in Earth’s primordial ooze. They mixed the molecules in water, heated the solution, then allowed it to evaporate, leaving behind a residue of hybrid, half-sugar, half-nucleobase molecules. To this residue they again added water, heated it, allowed it evaporate, and then irradiated it.

Um, according to the article they were very active in the "cooking" of the ribonucleotides.

Below is a video recreating the lab experiment cited in your article..........















You are the one being deceptive Madness.

You stated:

You can close your eyes and stick your fingers in your ears, but there is an immense amount of evidence that this is the case.Here's some.Hell, RNA has developed independently.

I read the article.

RNA did not develop independently.

Scientist synthesized a ribonucleotide, the building block of RNA.


You really need to take some cooking classes Madness, maybe you'll start to understand things better.

BAM!!

Originally posted by johngrissom
reply to post by madnessinmysoul

 

Also why have we not had a mass evolution since, well...us?

Take a little Chihuahua and put it next to a Great Dane. Both breeds of dog were created by humans breeding domesticated wolves. That is evolution in action and proof that evolution exists.

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
reply to post by Klassified

 

It specifically demolishes the idea of 'kinds' being unable to change. If you watch the video, there's a great bit where the maker of it goes about trying to figure out how they can all somehow be the same 'kind'. Creationists reject the idea of evolution beyond a 'variation in kind'...and typically a kind is somehow linked to reproduction...but there's a point where two populations that should be in the same 'kind' cannot reproduce.

Thus, this discredits one of the ideas of creationism, that variation only occurs within 'kinds'.

This disproves biblical infallibility. Not the entire idea of creationism. There are creationists, who don't believe one word of the bible mind you. Well the probably believe at least a few words, like "it rains" or "grain is harvested in certain seasons", but I'm sure you catch my drift.

Originally posted by johngrissom
reply to post by madnessinmysoul

 

Why is evolution still a theory and hasn't been proven correct?

*Ahem* To quote the wikipedia list of common misconceptions,

The word theory in the theory of evolution does not imply mainstream scientific doubt regarding its validity; the concepts of theory and hypothesis have specific meanings in a scientific context. While theory in colloquial usage may denote a hunch or conjecture, a scientific theory is a set of principles that explains observable phenomena in natural terms.[101][102] Evolution is a theory in the same sense as germ theory, gravitation, or plate tectonics.[103]

Originally posted by renegadeloser

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
reply to post by Klassified

 

It specifically demolishes the idea of 'kinds' being unable to change. If you watch the video, there's a great bit where the maker of it goes about trying to figure out how they can all somehow be the same 'kind'. Creationists reject the idea of evolution beyond a 'variation in kind'...and typically a kind is somehow linked to reproduction...but there's a point where two populations that should be in the same 'kind' cannot reproduce.

Thus, this discredits one of the ideas of creationism, that variation only occurs within 'kinds'.

This disproves biblical infallibility. Not the entire idea of creationism. There are creationists, who don't believe one word of the bible mind you. Well the probably believe at least a few words, like "it rains" or "grain is harvested in certain seasons", but I'm sure you catch my drift.

It doesn't prove anything of the sort. Remember, it's the creationists that are wrong, but what the creationists are saying is not what the BIBLE is saying. Most of them have never read it.

In the Bible the context was just farming. It never said that kinds couldn't change over thousands of years. The Bible NEVER says that. Also, the Bible never says that two animals of the same kind MUST be able to mate. All it says is that if they DO MATE they'll produce an animal of the same kind. But if they're unable to mate that doesn't automatically make them a different kind of animal. But that's all too complicated for what the Bible was trying to get across.

For example some animals were considered the same kind simply because they had the same type of hooves or feet. The Bible didn't really have that detailed of a system. Just enough to get the farmers by and show them how to organize the animals on the farms.

DNA, RNA, Genetic mutation over thousands of years. The Bible never gets into any of that stuff. Adam and Eve were just simple farmers. MUCH simpler people than we are. They didn't have all the knowledge that we do and didn't even have the capacity to understand it all. DNA and all that junk was totally IRRELEVANT to them. They wouldn't have even understood what God was talking about if he had tried to tell them all that.

All he was trying to do is give them the information required to farm. Sure millions of years from now animals may breed to the point where they become a different kind. But that is TOTALLY IRRELEVANT to a farmer that only lived a short time span.

All the simple people of time needed to know, and even had the capacity to understand was, that if they needed another lamb they had to breed two lambs. That's it. That's all it says.

Anything more is just projecting your system onto their system. Like the OPs video claiming creationists are wrong because two birds CHOOSE not to mate with each other even though they're capable. So, you project and say well since it's a different species it's a different kind too! No, the Bible wasn't obsessed with animal sex like you all are.

That's the evolutionist projecting what they believe onto the Bible, but that is not what the Bible says. The Bible doesn't require two animals to be able to mate to be the same kind. If they can't mate, well whatever, they may still be considered the same kind. They're still just birds. Whatever. They may not be the same kind though.

What determines a kind wasn't what was having sex with another. What determined what a kind was, was whatever made the most logical sense to a farmer to help them farm. Dividing each bird up into 30 different species of birds isn't really going to help a sheep farmer. It's not that it isn't true, it's just that it wasn't important at the time.

Only the scientist's system is obsessed with animal sex. The Bible isn't obsessed with animals having sex like that. It's just worried about helping people get by. That's just the scientists projecting their sex and mating obsession onto the Bible.

However, what was a kind and not a kind wasn't always determined by what the animals had sex with. All the Bible says, is that if two animals do have offspring, the offspring will be the same kind as the parents. But again this was for farming purposes or ritual purposes. Outside of those two things, the people didn't care if the animals had sex with each other or not.

They're not like today's scientists that like to get all up under the animals while they do it and watch. That stuff wasn't relevant to the simple farming people back then. If they do it, great, don't care. If they don't do it, great don't care. All a farmer cares about is his livestock and what he has to do to make more livestock.

The fact that a new animal might form millions of years later after the farmer is dead is completely irrelevant to the farmer. If you would have told him that, he would have just said, well that's fantastic, but I don't give a crap about that. All I care about is producing more farm animals and livestock to feed my family. That's all they understood.

It's not that the Bible is wrong about evolution. The truth is the Bible never MENTIONS evolution. It just doesn't address it at all. It doesn't go over DNA or any of that stuff. It's not right or wrong about the topic, because it DOESN'T COVER the topic. According to the story, it was just general information that God was giving to the first farmers ever and he gave them information that was relevant to them at the time.

The fact they could theoretically have new animals a million years later was completely irrelevant to a farmer that may only live 30-40 years.

Originally posted by randyvs
reply to post by TheWalkingFox

 

Come on have you ever seen me trying to prove God exists ?

No, but i'd be highly entertained by the effort.

It's so obvious he certainly dosn't need or want me to do so.

This must save you a lot of trouble. Scuse me, it's clear god wants me to pass wind now. Ahhh, better.

I simply point out how far people like you and Madness, (who don't even make up the better part of science) are away from proving he dosn't exist.

Not hard to do, since we're not even trying to do that. There's no need; as I said, why bother trying to disprove something that can't be proven even by the people who buy into it? Present some evidence, and sure I'll poke at it.

I'm happy with simply pointing out where your grasp of biology is bad.

In this case 92% of America still believe.

And? They also believe that if you cut taxes, the deficit will go down. Believing something doesn't actually make it so.

Originally posted by Nosred

Originally posted by johngrissom
reply to post by madnessinmysoul

 

Also why have we not had a mass evolution since, well...us?

Take a little Chihuahua and put it next to a Great Dane. Both breeds of dog were created by humans breeding domesticated wolves. That is evolution in action and proof that evolution exists.

Interestingly, these two dogs are an example of how dogs are a man-made ring species. The size differences are so great that they are physically incapable of mating (and a M great Dane / F Chihuahua crossing would kill the mother, whether done "old fashioned" or in vitro)

They are in effect different species, despite being behaviorally and chemically comparable. You can breed Chihuahuas up with slightly larger dogs and Danes down with slightly smaller ones, on down the line until the two mongrel lineages meet, but you can't combine them directly.

reply to post by randyvs

Yet 92% of Americans still believe in a creator God.

Yes, and we all know that more people believing in something means it must be true. If you want to play that game, a majority of the people in developed countries believe in evolution. The U.S. is one of two countries that can't seem to reconcile scientific fact with religion. Turkey is the other one.

reply to post by dusty1


They aren't 'cooking', they're mixing the ingredients to recreate conditions as found in the very early years of the Earth. It's running a miniature version of a natural phenomenon. I explained this to you, but you're obstinate enough to not care.

reply to post by johngrissom

Originally posted by johngrissom
reply to post by madnessinmysoul

 

So why is it that the birds don't just evolve into a species that doesn't have to migrate?

Double facepalm was an appropriate response.

Same for other animals as well...

Also why have we not had a mass evolution since, well...us?

Um...we have. In the last 100,000 or so years.

Why is evolution still a theory and hasn't been proven correct?

I provided four links in a sentence that read 'Your ignorance is showing', go back and review them as they address this issue. Evolution is both a fact and a theory.

reply to post by Dasher


I repeatedly demonstrated that you are either outright lying or incredibly ignorant on many subjects...and your response is to reply to it as a tantrum? I'm sorry, but this sort of disingenuous to a massive degree. And it's ironic because it is in fact a hissy fit to say that and sort of just storm off and tend to whatever it is you have to tend to.

I have things to tend to as well, like making sure the sort of bald-faced idiocy that you're spewing out is kept from infecting the minds of so many who might read it.

So again, I'll just summarize how wrong you were:

Evolution is a theory, creationism is a hypothesis. A theory is something that is incredibly well supported by facts and describes a fact. Evolution is also a fact.

Macro-evolution? Plainly proven. Link was provided to a hell of a lot of proof.

You keep tossing out a weird straw man about us somehow rejecting life because we aren't dualists who see life as some sort of supernatural force...

Apparently I can rob your house when nobody is watching and get away entirely without consequence because we are only able to know what happens if we've seen it.
I'll post an image that has a hilarious version of this:

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/d7458da90be4.gif[/atsimg]

I'm still waiting on "all the contrary evidence even more miraculous", could you please demonstrate it? Could anyone? You know, I actually have a thread in my signature called "Evolution: FALSIFY IT!" that specifically calls for that.

You made the claim, yet again, that evolution has something to do with anything other than the diversity of life...which is just wrong. Evolution is the change in allele frequency within a population over successive generations.

I asked for evidence of spiritual things....I don't see a tantrum yet, I'm still waiting for that.

You once again misrepresented evolution, this time as an origin of life...which is the realm of abiogenesis. As I had already explained.

You had this odd straw man of claiming that people are saying that abiogenesis and evolution are spontaneous...which nobody claims.

The ol' "chance" straw man was trotted out as well.

You demonstrated your lack of understanding of genetics and anatomy by using a metaphor about cutting off a limb to supposedly prove your spiritual claims about life...which failed horribly and all I had to point out was that a simple understanding of genetics and anatomy was all that you needed to show that....still waiting for that tantrum in there..

I pointed out that we made synthetic DNA...

I pointed out that claiming anything in modern biology would take hundreds of years was ignoring that modern biology is only 150 years old.

You claimed that I was wrong in saying there is no such thing as an 'evolutionist'...yet your argument is was demonstration of ignorance. I provided four links that demonstrated your ignorance in claiming that evolution is not a fact. It is a fact.

You accused me of being unfamiliar with philosophy (what you really probably meant was metaphysics, as I doubt a study of aesthetics or ontology has much to do with this discussion) and religion...I told you, and many can back up my claim, that I'm incredibly familiar with religious texts as well as the philosophical ones that are a part of my university studies.

I addressed your silly life spiritual claims.

You demonstrated your idiocy by saying that blind zealotry is somehow compatible with questioning and testing every claim...which is just stupid.

And then I replied to your odd little 'warnings' with real warnings...oh, is that what you meant by a tantrum? Doing the same thing to you that you did to me...huh. Can't take what you try to dish out then?

Odd that this puerile little personal attack of yours got so many stars...granted, I know I have a lot of enemies on ATS, so it's not that surprising that ignorance directed against me would get reward.

reply to post by johngrissom

Why is evolution still a theory and hasn't been proven correct?

Are people really still in the dark about what constitutes a scientific theory?

From the US National Academy of Sciences:

The formal scientific definition of theory is quite different from the everyday meaning of the word. It refers to a comprehensive explanation of some aspect of nature that is supported by a vast body of evidence. Many scientific theories are so well established that no new evidence is likely to alter them substantially. For example, no new evidence will demonstrate that the Earth does not orbit around the sun (heliocentric theory), or that living things are not made of cells (cell theory), that matter is not composed of atoms, or that the surface of the Earth is not divided into solid plates that have moved over geological timescales (the theory of plate tectonics). One of the most useful properties of scientific theories is that they can be used to make predictions about natural events or phenomena that have not yet been observed.

And from the American Association for the Advancement of Sciences:

A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment. Such fact-supported theories are not "guesses" but reliable accounts of the real world. The theory of biological evolution is more than "just a theory." It is as factual an explanation of the universe as the atomic theory of matter or the germ theory of disease. Our understanding of gravity is still a work in progress. But the phenomenon of gravity, like evolution, is an accepted fact.

Got it now?

reply to post by madnessinmysoul


More creationism versus evolution. The two basis ideas aren't mutually exclusive. Why does so many insist on pretending it is so? Lack of imagination perhaps? I'd place my bet on the conditions that led to the preconceptions both sides guard oh so jealousy.

Oh, and hiya MIMS. Nice to see you about again. If you haven't tried it you should try a game called "Minecraft" it rules.

reply to post by madnessinmysoul


This is found in many species we know to be the same. Not a change of KIND the birds aren't turning into monkees or fish it's still a bird.

Just like the rabbits of Alaska and Florida can no longer have offspring but they are still rabbits. And if they lost all ability t procreate they would become extinct. I see nothing but GOD's Hand here...

reply to post by madnessinmysoul

How do we know that these different birds actually evolved to be different? Couldn't it be that several different types of similar birds were created and they have just adjusted migration patterns so that they populate similar areas? It makes sense that since they would be seeking a mate that they would all hang out in the same area if the were seeking the same type of mate.

Humans tend to do the same thing. Look at this collection of photos by Eric Fischer that showcase major cities of the U.S. and their ethnic breakdown

I was astounded by Bill Rankin's map of Chicago's racial and ethnic divides and wanted to see what other cities looked like mapped the same way. To match his map, Red is White, Blue is Black, Green is Asian, Orange is Hispanic, Gray is Other, and each dot is 25 people. Data from Census 2000.

Race and ethnicity (2000)

This one represents Philadelphia. (Larger detailed image at the link above)

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/f7b907df3c8d.jpg[/atsimg]

Even humans seem to congregate into similar groups and associate with like variants of the same species. You can point out that this is just for social and political reasons (partly true) but birds have a social pecking order too so there's no reason that this behavior is a product of evolution and just a grouping of like birds into common areas.

reply to post by dbates


Well, because that claim of yours is without evidence. I'm not sure, but it wouldn't be a far stretch that the genetics of these species demonstrate the claim that they diverged. For you to merely claim that they were created and then migrated in whatever manner is...well...baseless speculation. I could also say that they sprung forth from trees in those areas and that the minor differences in the trees are what caused the minor differences in their appearance and I would be no more right or wrong than your claim.